The minutes of the Strategic
Planning and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting
held on September 2018 could not be confirmed as not all members
had been able to access the minutes in time for the meeting
It was agreed that they would be signed
by the Chairman at the next meeting.

143.

Apologies for Absence

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

None were received.

144.

Declarations of Interest

To receive any declarations of interest.

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

145.

Public Participation

Minutes:

There was no public participation.

146.

Consideration of any matter referred to the Committee in relation to Call-In

- O/S mix of Overs and
Unders
- paragraphs 3.1 – 3.4 highlights the Overs and Unders.
- 450,000 reduction value of recyclables.
- Other key area is Building Control
– number of Temps.

Cllr Birnie said he was concerned about commercial waste and asked
how long the review would last and should we be considering axing
it?

N Howcutt explained that there
has been pressure over the last few years but at present it is not
costing the council.

D Austin said that the draft
report work would be put together next year for the 750 customers
and changes would be brought in from April 2019.

Cllr Birnie remarked that the
Capital Budget of £155,000 seems a tiny amount for
vehicles.

N Howcutt explained that this
has slipped into 2020,21 and 22 as
procurement is a long process and rather than rushing in, time is
being taken to procure the best vehicles..

Cllr Birnie asked what then
would be happening this year?

N Howcutt confirmed that older
vehicles were being purchased with a view to them lasting u until
the new arrived in just over a year. .

Cllr Hicks asked how
the overspend in garages has
happened.

N Howcutt said that this was
ongoing due to a decrease in take-up and said there was lots of
work going on around this.

Cllr Fisher said that if CSG
was running satisfactorily with vacant posts, should this vary
would we be able to recruit in time.

N Howcutt said that more budget
was available, but budget would be reducing.

D Austin explained that due to
a wet April followed by the hot Summer
grass died down naturally as a result of which no temporary staff
were recruited and there was no issue with output.

Cllr Matthews said that there
was a lot of ‘red’ on Page 16, and asked what that
related to.

D Austin said that did not
refer to the CSG side but rather to Waste.

Cllr Anderson said that
Paragraph 3.1 – Assertion meeting SLA’s – Members
are asking for things to be done but it isn’t happening. How
does that square with the assertion that the service is reaching
its delivery plan?

D Austin explained that he
would need to know what requests are coming through.

N Howcutt remarked that the
requests maybe outside of remit.

Cllr Anderson gave the example
that a church fence had fallen which was the responsibility of
Dacorum, a replacement had been requested three times but nothing
had happened.

-17 indicators on Planning and
Performance report – 9 at green, 2 at amber and 3 at red, the
rest are for information.

-Currently just under
£40,000 below target income, hit target in September,
exceeded target in October and on track to meet them for
November.

-Land Charges income suffering
from reduction in business from processing searches etc

-Enforcement workload
constantly rising, little down on one of the indicators.

-Appeals performance cause to
flag for a little concern as has dipped under 70%
target.

Cllr Birnie said that he had
not had time to read the report since it came in at the last minute
and said that when the committee has turned down an item it goes to
appeal it seems the member concerned is automatically asked to
write a defence of the reasons it was turned down for the officer,
and he would like a protocol established for this which he had
already discussed with P Newton.

J Doe responded that he had
noted this.

Cllr Matthews asked that out of
the cases heard how many resulted in costs being awarded against
the council.

J Doe said that he was not
aware of any costs being awarded.

Cllr Anderson pointed out that
the cost of officer time should be considered.

Cllr Riddick said that he
believed that the majority of appeals go beyond 8
weeks. He expressed his concern over
Runways Farm (item 14) because was a 3 day Public Enquiry, and a
complex situation and the Planning Officer delivered his full
report in 14 days and he is
unhappy about that as he feels it is unrealistic.

J Doe addressed the Chairman
and said that it was not something he could really comment on as it
is a matter for the Planning Inspectorate, but Inspectors have
different workloads some busier than others and some cases take
longer to get to enquiry or to a written representation decision
but it is not in our hands at that point.

Cllr Anderson said that it
would not be a matter for this committee but if anyone felt it was
in the Public interest they could challenge it.

J Doe explained that there is a
6 week window for an application for judicial review after the
decision is issued and it can only be challenged on a point of law
or procedure.

Cllr Hicks asked that if it was
a planning application for less than 10 houses, even if we lose are
there no costs against us.

J Doe responded that the issue
of costs could apply to any planning appeal but they do tend to be
on the larger applications.

Cllr Birnie asked if in this
quarter we have not turned down any major proposals that have gone
to appeal.

J Doe said that this was not in
the report but he believed that was correct.

-Flats were not included in the
new service. Participation and Contamination were
concerns.

-Task Group consisting of
Officers and Members looked at options around providing a service
which was the same for all residents.

- 3 month food trial introduced
to see if Residents would engage, then facts and figures would be
looked at to make a decision for the future. It was made clear that this was a
trial.

Cllr Birnie said that the costs
were shown to make permanent, but asked what would the plus
side.

C Thorpe replied that there
would not necessarily be a saving but we would be providing the
same service to everyone, and also improves our environmental
credentials, as we will be diverting another couple of hundred ton
a year from landfill.

Cllr Timmis asked if there was a possibility of using
the food waste with digesters that produce energy and whether food
waste was collected from Restaurants and Cafes.

C Thorpe explained that all our
food waste goes to energy and is sold back to the National Grid
which gave us a saving over sending to landfill. Commercial
collections needs further work.

Cllr Riddick said he thought
the numbers on the 7 year programme didn’t make sense as
numbers would escalate when we have more properties.

C Thorpe said we still have
stock so no increase on that but new properties have not been
factored into the scheme.

Cllr Riddick felt that it would
have a significant impact on the figures and asked if C Thorpe
could look into this and report back.

Cllr Matthews said he thought
it was an interesting initiative and wanted to know what type of
contamination is in the bins and when the bins were taken away was
there any evidence of food waste being left where bins
were.

C Thorpe said that it is not
always possible to tell the level of contamination but there had
been no rejected loads from the energy and waste plant and they can
receive and removeupto 20% level of contamination.
He confirmed that there had been no issues of fly-tipping food
waste.

M Parr said that if we proceed
with rolling out this service to flats, there would be more
information and help given to tenants in order that they could
recycle successfully.

Cllr Anderson said that it was
the first trial that he could remember where we have actually
stopped the trial and he would share the residents frustration
being told that they cannot recycle anymore and asked was the trial
only stopped due to financial reasons
.

C Thorpe replied that the
reasons were not purely financial but there was a cost of hiring a
vehicle and employing a driver to carry out that trial and it could
have been a complete failure, ...
view the full minutes text for item 151.

- Agreeing or disagreeing with
the requirements – 95.2% supported this proposal.

- National Trust land excluded
– preferring the stick and flick method.

-Requirements of clearing up
after dogs was strongly supported – 95.1%

-- Placing dogs on a
lead - there
are some issues with professional dog walkers who take out groups
of dogs, 91.9% agreed with the proposal.(Q4 refers)

- Dogs and Play areas –
dogs should be excluded from fenced areas. Over 90%
agreed.

Cllr Hicks asked if the area
was not fenced could the proposed rules still be enforced, and said
that he was keen for sports pitches to be included.

D Rhoden explained that
establishment of the boundaries would be difficult and therefore
would be open to legal challenges.

Cllr Riddick asked whether
Boxmoor Trust as opposed to the
National Trust were in favour of picking up dog mess on their
land.

D Rhoden said that at a meeting
with Boxmoor Trust they had expressed
that they wanted their land to be covered.

Cllr Anderson asked if this
enabled the authority to deal with issues where people just allowed
dogs to roam off their property.

D Rhoden said that if dogs are
continually roaming there is legislation that can be used including
community protection warnings. This piece of legislation would not
cover that.

Cllr Timms asked if there was a breakdown of area with
regards to the survey and how people were made aware of
it.

D Rhoden replied that it was an
anonymous survey and awareness was raised via social media,
Dacorum’s website, Boxmoor Trust and the National Trust, and Parish
Councils amongst others.

Cllr Howard commented that she
had spoken to a group of dog owners who totally agree that they
want something done.

Cllr Birnie remarked that
putting wasted in normal bins is a reasonable ideabut they should be emptied more often and that
needs to be addressed.

Cllr Marshall told the
committee that the list of play areas in the report all allude to
the fenced play areas but that the companies that supply the
equipment for this have found that unfenced areas are what the
industry is moving towards.This will
cause problems in respect of prosecution for dog fouling so asked
if dogs could be excluded within a certain distance of these
areas.

Cllr Timmis Said that she supported the idea of people
picking up after their dogs, but that she felt dogs should not be
demonised as families with children often have a dog and it would
not be practical for the dogs to be kept metres away. She made the
point that we have no control over cat mess which is equally if not
more dangerous.

Cllr Anderson proposed that the
proposal was supported with the kennel club wording but also with
the proviso that we are able to report specific bins or inadequate
bin coverage.

-Dacorum continues to
outperform the County and National 5 year new business survival
rate at 46.5%.

-We have secured funding from
Regional European Development Fund which allows us to work with
businesses under 3 years and offer them free training and free
workshops. 66 new signups and 64 new jobs have been created in the
last year through that programme alone.

-518 visits with established
businesses in the area to ensure they have what they need from
Dacorum.

- New business centre opens at
Kylna Court in January hosting 8
serviced offices of which we have filled 7 already.

- We have run 57 workshops in
the past year to upskill businesses and their staff on sub-skills
and that has brought in just over £29,000 with a profit of
just over £4,000.

-Breakdown of investment can be
circulated to everyone.

-Town Centre events have been
put on eg: Halloween event and the
Christmas Lights switch on.

Cllr Birnie asked who is
funding the Dacorum Ambassadors.

L Crisp replied that it is
self- funding although the Council has contributed to get the team
going. It was only ever temporary.

Cllr Birnie said that we claim
we are above the average for new businesses but he knows that St
Albans over a five year period had a better percentage than ours
– is there anything we can learn from them?

L Crisp responded that we work
quite closely with them so she is happy to speak to them to find if
we are ‘missing a trick’.

Cllr Hicks asked how much of
spend for events, functions and subsidised offices was used outside
Hemel Hempstead itself.

L Crisp said that all areas are
covered and there are often visits to rural businesses as well but
events tend to be in Hemel Hempstead Town Centre.

Cllr Matthews asked if studies
had been done on start- up and mid- range accommodation for growing
businesses and whether we had the right mix.

L Crisp explained that a
regular business survey was done and there is a gap between the
1500 square foot and the 3000 square foot space. Work is being done
to improve this.Kylna Court is aimed specifically at move on
businesses so these offices are for 6-12 people.

Cllr Anderson asked if we are
able to do something about this using the local planning
process.

J Doe said that there were
actually 2 strands – the business survey and the employment
land study across SW Herts and that informs us how much new space
we need and we will be addressing this as we move through the local
plan between now and Summer next year.

Cllr Ransley remarked that we had lost a lot of space
which was used for start-up businesses and small business to
re-development for housing and asked where the priority
is.

S Jayasinghe said that that
this year 17/18 was really good and income exceeded
expectation.

Cllr Birnie asked if the CIL
division that was highlighted was a statutory decision and S
Jayasinghe confirmed that it was. In view of this Cllr Birnie
enquired why the task group would be taking suggestions for CIL
expenditure if everything was already pre-determined. J Doe
explained that the current report was about known priorities in
connection with the local plan. A new business plan will be
produced which would give us a clearer position on the amount of
infrastructure needed to match the amount of growth anticipated
through to 2036. Once we are in receipt of that it may be that the
priorities have to change. In terms of the task and finish
arrangements they are not there to determine expenditure on CIL as
we already have a mechanism to do this.
Cabinet approved it in the form of a working group to look at this
with representation from other bodies including the County Council
and other infrastructure providers sitting on that to make
recommendations back to Cabinet then Council about spend. There
will be more information once we have the result of this
work.

Cllr Anderson asked if it was
known how much we hadn’t received in relation to CIL receipts
– when we first started we did struggle to collect quite a
large amount.

S Jayasinghe replied that a lot
of work tightening up on this has been done our debt recovery and
payments to date have been good. There are some outstanding debits
but nothing older than 6 months

Cllr Anderson asked if the only
one that was outstanding was the Beacon Development in Apsley. J Doe
explained that development has not yet started so it is not yet
due.

Cllr Anderson said that on the
point of expenditure he was slightly concerned with an issue in
Berkhamsted which a letter in the local
paper suggested that a major improvement that was necessary was
being held back because no CIL funding was being released to make
it happen, and he thought it may have involved the surgery although
he cannot remember. He added that although he knows we are not
going to get the amount of money through CIL that we need he
wonders whether he wonders if we could take a tiny proportion of it
to get some big wins and whether there was any opportunity to do
that.

James Doe made the point that
the issue mentioned was thoroughly debated internally and it was
about re-organising provision in Berkhamsted. He said that in terms of ongoing spend
the process for the infrastructure advisory group takes place in
Spring and that would be the time for
further debate. There will be letters going out to seek bids into
the process. CIL is a very small proportion of spend and the gap is
really huge so we have to be careful how we spend the money.
...
view the full minutes text for item 154.